Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 17/527,439

WIRELESS POWER TRANSMISSION DEVICE HOLDER AND METHOD FOR MAKING THE SAME

Final Rejection §103
Filed
Nov 16, 2021
Examiner
TRA, ANH QUAN
Art Unit
2843
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
Tc1 LLC
OA Round
4 (Final)
73%
Grant Probability
Favorable
5-6
OA Rounds
2y 4m
To Grant
78%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 73% — above average
73%
Career Allow Rate
807 granted / 1110 resolved
+4.7% vs TC avg
Moderate +5% lift
Without
With
+5.3%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 4m
Avg Prosecution
38 currently pending
Career history
1148
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.4%
-39.6% vs TC avg
§103
57.6%
+17.6% vs TC avg
§102
24.9%
-15.1% vs TC avg
§112
7.8%
-32.2% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1110 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action: A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made. Claim(s) 1-4, 8-12, 16 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoaran et al. (US 20170063143) in view of Voy (US 10524526), Frierson et al. (US 9427027), Jeanneteau et al. (US 20210267021) and Takahashi et al. (US 20160124171). As to claim 1, Hoaran’s figures 11B-11D and 26A show a portable wireless power transmission medical device holder for carrying an external coil including a coil body and a wire, the wireless power transmission device holder comprising: a fabric panel comprising a plurality of segments (front and back segments, see figure 11D) and at least partially defining a cavity sized to receive the coil body. The figures fail to show the shape and structure of the device holder as claimed. However, Voy’s figures 7-10 show a simple and low cost portable device holder. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to use Voy’s device holder for Hoaran’s device holder for the purpose saving cost. Therefore, the modified Hoaran’s figures show that the fabric panel comprising a plurality of segments and at least partially defining a cavity (Voy’s 33) sized to receive the coil body, the fabric panel further comprising at least one edge sized to receive the wire, and a fastening mechanism (adhesive 35) provided on at least one segment of the plurality of segments on a back side of the fabric panel, wherein the fastening mechanism is configured to engage a garment at a user selected position on the garment and define an opening corresponding to the at least one edge sized to receive the wire extending from the coil body. The modified Hoaran et al.’s figure fails to show a plastic insert including snap fit protuberances extending outwardly from the surface, the snap fit protuberances configured to engage the coil body to secure a position of the coil body within the cavity. However, Frierson et al.’s figure 5 shows a pocket comprising plastic insert 68. Jeanneteau et al.’s figures further shows a plastic coil hob (¶0004) that comprises snap fit protuberances (bulges) extending outwardly from the surface (¶0014). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to include a plastic insert that comprise snap fit protuberances extending outwardly from the surface in the modified Hoaran et al.’s pocket for the purpose of protecting and securing the coil. The modified device further shows that the snap fit protuberances configured to engage the coil body to secure a position of the coil body within the cavity. The modified device further fails to show that the snap fit protuberances are arranged in a shape conforming to a shape of the coil body and the wire of the external coil, the snap fit protuberances sized and shaped to receive both the coil body and the wire. However, Takahashi et al.’s figure 1A-2 show a coil case comprises a snap fit protuberances (10, 11A or 30 in figure 2) that are arranged in a shape conforming to a shape of the coil body and the wire of the external coil (further see figure 13), the snap fit protuberances sized and shaped to receive both coil body (3) and wire (3 shown in figure 13A, see 13D and 13E in figure 13B). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to shape the snap fit protuberances in the modified Hoaran’s figures as claimed for the purpose of further protecting the coil. As to claim 2, it is seen as an obvious design preference to size the cavity to be a close-fit arrangement with the coil body for the purpose of storing the coil more tightly. As to claim 3, the modified Hoaran’s figures show that the fastening mechanism is a layer of fabric tape covered in a layer of protective film (Voy’s col. 9, lines 16-20). As to clam 4, the modified Hoaran’s figures show that the fastening mechanism is at least one of fabric fusing glue, velcro, and snaps (Voy’s col. 9, lines 16-20). As to claim 5, arranging the snap fit protruberances as claimed is seen as an obvious design preference to ensure optimum performance. As to claim 6, the modified Horan’s figures show that the snap fit protuberances are configured to engage the wire. As to claim 7, selecting the plastic insert to be sized to establish a close-fit arrangement within the cavity to substantially eliminate gaps between an edge and the plastic insert for the purpose of holding the coil more securely. As to claim 8, selecting the material for the fabric panel to be a non-woven synthetic material configured to hold a static electric charge is seen as an obvious design preference to ensure optimum performance, i.e. protecting the patience. Furthermore, Voy identifies polyacetate (nylon) as a suitable material (Voy 7:40-41), which Appellant characterizes in the Specification as a synthetic material configured to hold a static electric charge (Spec. § 35). As to claim 9, Voy’s figure 5 shows a zipper (16), and the fabric panel comprises two portions that are detachably coupled to one another at the zipper. Claims 10-20 recite similar limitations of claims above. Therefore, they are rejected for the same reasons. Conclusion Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a). A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANH-QUAN TRA whose telephone number is (571)272-1755. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri from 8:00 A.M.-5:00 P.M. Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Lincoln Donovan can be reached on 571-272-1988. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /QUAN TRA/ Primary Examiner Art Unit 2842
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Nov 16, 2021
Application Filed
Nov 07, 2022
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Jan 30, 2023
Response Filed
Feb 03, 2023
Final Rejection — §103
May 08, 2023
Response after Non-Final Action
May 08, 2023
Notice of Allowance
May 31, 2023
Response after Non-Final Action
Jul 10, 2023
Response after Non-Final Action
Jul 13, 2023
Response after Non-Final Action
Jul 19, 2023
Response after Non-Final Action
Sep 25, 2023
Response after Non-Final Action
Sep 25, 2023
Response after Non-Final Action
Sep 26, 2023
Response after Non-Final Action
Sep 26, 2023
Response after Non-Final Action
Feb 24, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Apr 21, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Apr 22, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Jun 20, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Sep 24, 2025
Response Filed
Oct 01, 2025
Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12603411
READING DEVICE FOR SUPERCONDUCTING QUBIT
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12603633
ACOUSTIC WAVE DEVICE, FILTER, AND MULTIPLEXER
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12597909
BULK ACOUSTIC WAVE DEVICE INCLUDING PATTERNED ACOUSTIC MIRROR LAYERS TO REDUCE EFFECTIVE THICKNESS AND RELATED METHODS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12597903
FILTER AND ASSOCIATED RECEIVING CIRCUIT
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12597940
CIRCUITRY AND METHOD FOR REDUCING ENVIRONMENTAL NOISE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

5-6
Expected OA Rounds
73%
Grant Probability
78%
With Interview (+5.3%)
2y 4m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 1110 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month